Conservation as a cruel joke

The three stooges regaled audiences during the fifties and sixties and belonged to the golden age of comedy in Hollywood. In one of their ...

The three stooges regaled audiences during the fifties and sixties and belonged to the golden age of comedy in Hollywood. In one of their films, two of the three stooges read instructions from a book on dentistry while the third rams into the teeth of a writhing patient with a carpenter8217;s drill and hammer. The obviously sadistic humour is also highlighted by the confusion over which profession belonged where.

The amateur and, therefore, unski-lled attempts at conservation in India today are analogous to the scene descr-ibed. There is much confusion between the professional and the layman on the scope of the word conservation8217;. Not many are actually clear about what conservation is, most are happy to go along with what they hear about it. They also accept what they see of it.

This is especially true of heritage sites that are with the government, since the best of our architectural heritage is under the Archaeological Survey of India ASI and attracts the maximum tourists. Most sig- htseers are notdiscriminating about the condition of what they see, neither do they wonder about the quality of what is done to keep these monuments supposedly in good health. They are happy to spend some hours there, take photo-graphs and talk about the experience when they go home.

To expect people in general to speculate about the condition of man-made heritage is expecting a great deal. This is probably the reason why so much of defective and insensitive restoration8217; is acceptable in India.

The trouble is that actual professi-onal conservation in India is known to very few, whether it is work done on bu-ildings, paintings or other artifacts. The result is that when a layman encounters the wrong and unethical kind of conservation8217;, he or she is unable to make a proper comparison whereby one discriminates the good from the incorrect.

Taking advantage of this confusion are dilettantes and people of other professions who effortlessly make the denti-stry-carpentry swap. They are of the belief that conservationrequires no particular training or talent and that it is all a matter of applying one8217;s common sense and bits of expertise to the work at hand.

Architects also fall into this category but their case is somewhat different. Whereas they can be part of the core group that discusses a particular project, they cannot work independently on that project because they do not have the essential training; neither do they always have a know-ledge of traditional architecture. In order to und-erstand and practise it, they will have to study architectural conservation.

Story continues below this ad

It is, therefore, necessary to understand some terminology of this profession and, through that, understand what conservation actually is. Some of the words have different connotations for the professional and the layman. Restoration8217; was the word used by professionals the world over decades ago. It lay great stress on the final look and appearance of a building or object at hand. Conservation8217; today alters the stress given to the final look bysuggesting that the original form, structure and material are of great importance.

In India restoration8217; is the word that is recognised by everyone but the sense given to it is even more elementary than the meaning given to restoration decades ago. In our country, restoration8217; is constructed by many to mean a reconstruction or a remaking of a broken or a collapsed edifice. Several collapsed havelis and forts are examples of reconstruction according to the needs and demands of a hotelier or an owner. The arbitrary remaking instead of following the original layout and intention is referred to as restoration8217;, which most people accept as being the case.

If this kind of restoration8217; was in any case the wish of the owner, then it should be frankly stated and not be confused with actual conservation; neither should it be proclaimed as a work of restoration. By professional standards, this kind of restoration is whimsical, subjective and non-ethical. Such a restoration establishes a slick job which istotally at variance with conservation norms.

For an edifice to conform to correct norms it is essential to understand the causes for its decline, and the way it is to be brought back to health, keeping in mind the originality of material, structure and historicity of the building. Conservation of such edifices will have to be based on research, while taking the assistance of scientific methods. When professionals refer to ethics8217;, they allude to certain principles, rules and expertise in theory and practical work that are required by the conservator.

Story continues below this ad

These are ethics that all professionals, no matter of what profession, need to share.

Non-professional restoration establishes its own aesthetic code by seeking to beautify an edifice in any way desired by the people concerned. In actual conservation, the aesthetic side is never subjective, depending on various whims and fancies. In other words, individual opinions of taste are never taken into account. If work on a given building follows set norms, thenthe aesthetic or beautification8217; aspect automatically falls into place.

The end-result can never be permitted to intrude into the working process of a conservator. He or she must concentrate on the stage-by-stage evolution of a work and allow the beauty to come in as a result of the evolution.

Beautification8217; a non-professional word and a favourite of government agencies is often used when walls are whitewashed hiding the original material or a crumbling wall painting or when valuable rubble is thrown away. Wall paintings are also made to disappear under whitewash when found to be attacked by fungus, when cracks appear on the painted walls or when they fade.

Story continues below this ad

Only a small percentage of discerning persons will be appalled by th-ese happenings and question the search for uncomplicated and quick ways of doing things while simultaneously seeking to give the impression that work has been done. Most custodians of our heritage are not professionally trained and therefore do not question the ethics of whatthey do as long as it appears that something is being done.

Ethics are the preoccupation of pr-ofessionals who are greatly concerned by the means and strategy that they follow even if the procedure is complex and time-consuming. Government agencies are known for their quick and easy methods, which pass off as hard work. The Delhi8217;s National Museum building is filled with potted plants from a subsidiary department of horticulture beautifying8217; the museum, while white paint delineates new pathways in a historic landscape at total variance with the original setting. Neat8217; and beautiful8217; in quick time!

While all this happens, the patient writhes in the dentist8217;s chair, attacked by the carpenter8217;s drill. Heritage awaits trained expertise to work on it and put an end to the writhing.

The writer is a well-known art critic and restorer